well... it's more of a - suspending your belief - kind of thing.

something i normally have no trouble with - but in a film like this ... the town wasnt supposed to exist in reality ...

it's kind of hard to feel that way when there's a pub on the street you had a beer in before someones wedding once.


i felt the same way with Starman - (coincidently - carpenter again) where i thought that it was a real mistake to use Bridges - because he was playing the roll of an alien ... i thought an unknown actor would have been a better choice so i wasnt distracted by knowing who he was and comparring him to his other roles.

(which is why the 1st star wars worked so well for me - unknown actors - working their hearts out)

somehow in fantasy films - unknowns as leads always work better for me.
(look at Romeros early dead films vs Land ... the stars took me right out of Land)

Well, an actor is supposed to play a role so well that you believe them in said role. Of course in any movie you can say that it's just a man or woman pretending. Oh, and there were stars in land? ;) (Just kidding, I gotta give Hopper his due.)

i know it's a silly point of view - in most movies it really doesnt matter .. but then again - in most movies you really dont have to stretch your imagination that far.

for me it's like this ..

if a fantasy (horror/sci-fi) film is handled as if this thing is really happening (in otherwords - they take the premise seriously) then it just works so much better for me with unknowns - or at least unknowns in the leading rolls.

if the movie is an obvious goof on the genre - then i dont care - i just sit back and watch what the actor does with the roll.


i realize that none of this makes any sense at all ..

This movie came on Sci-Fi last night too.

It isn't a silly point of view really, just a little different than mine, I understand it completely though.